Exporting and Restructuring in Privatised Firms from Russia, Ukraine and Belarus

Filatotchev, Igor; Wright, Mike; Buck, Trevor; Dyomina, N.

doi:10.1111/1467-9701.00244

Cited by 21 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It complements other studies of the influence of institutional changes on exports in transition economies (e.g., Filatotchev et al 1999, Buck et al 2000, Filatotchev et al 2001) by analyzing firms in developing capitalist countries in Latin America, a region that has received relatively little attention in the literature (Hoskisson et al 2000) but whose firms are improving and becoming multinationals (Domínguez/Brenes 1997, Anand et al 2006, Cuervo-Cazurra 2007, 2008.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 95%

“…Most studies of firm strategy in emerging economies have focused on transition economies and a few Asian countries (see the reviews by Hoskisson et al 2000, Wright et al 2005. Firms in transition economies behave differently from those in developing countries, because the creation of a capitalist system in transition economies has resulted in specific patterns of firm behavior, such as the emergence of new private firms (for reviews of firms in transition economies, see Peng/Heath 1996, andMeyer 2001, and for analyses of the impact of transition on firm behavior see Filatotchev et al 1999, Buck et al 2000, Filatotchev et al 2001, Filatotchev/Isachenkova/Mickiewicz 2007. Previous studies of firms in developing capitalist nations have generally concentrated on the effect on firms of separate dimensions of structural reform, such as privatization (e.g., Ramamurti 2000).…”

Section: Structural Reform and Firm Exports Structural Reformmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Structural Reform and Firm Exports

Cuervo-Cazurra

Dau

2009

Manag Int Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

0We analyze the impact of structural reform on firm exports. We argue that structural reform generates new opportunities and reduces transaction costs, inducing firms to improve their efficiency and competitiveness to international levels, therefore, helping them to export. However, we propose that not all companies benefit equally, because firms differ in how structural reform affects their competitiveness. We argue that subsidiaries of foreign firms are the main beneficiaries of structural reform, followed by domestic private firms, and finally by domestic state-owned firms. 0 We test these arguments on a sample of the largest companies in Latin America for the period 1990-2005. We find that structural reform induces firms to export. Furthermore, it has the highest positive impact on the exports of subsidiaries of foreign firms, followed by those of domestic private firms. Surprisingly, we find that structural reform has a negative impact on the exports of domestic state-owned firms. 0The paper contributes to a better understanding of how changes in institutions affect firm behavior by explaining the mechanisms that link structural reform to firm exports and how these vary across firms. Moreover, by indicating that not only foreign but also domestic private firms benefit from structural reform, it counters the arguments of detractors of globalization who claim that foreign firms are the sole beneficiaries of structural reform. The paper also highlights the need to discuss who benefits from structural reform rather than whether structural reform is beneficial or detrimental.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 95%

Section: Structural Reform and Firm Exports Structural Reformmentioning

confidence: 99%

Structural Reform and Firm Exports

Cuervo-Cazurra

Dau

2009

Manag Int Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For example, industrial privatisation began in Russia, Ukraine andBelarus in 1992, 1994 and 1993 respectively, where the numbers of firms actually privatised were approximately 20,000, 8,000 and just over 200. By 1997, the private sector's share of total industrial output was respectively 89 per cent, 40 per cent and 12 per cent [Filatotchev et al, 1999a]. For this reason, one of the four models reported below used country dummies for Russia and Ukraine, with Belarus as a control.…”

Section: Determinants Of Exportingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, the relative slowness of Belarus (and to some extent Ukraine) in the transition to private outside ownership should be noted. More detailed ownership patterns for each country over time may be obtained from Filatotchev et al [1999aFilatotchev et al [ : 1027.…”

Section: Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Exporting Activity in Transitional Economies: An Enterprise-Level Study

Buck¹,

Filatotchev

Demina³

et al. 2000

Journal of Development Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study represents the first enterprise level analysis of the determinants of exporting in transitional economies, and focuses on privatised manufacturing firms in Russia, Ukraine and Belarus. Employing models developed from the existing literature on enterprise-level trade, results derived from longitudinal data suggest that the most important influences on a firm's decision to export are company size and the non-monotonic, curvilinear influence of managerial ownership and control. Comparisons are made with studies of less developed countries.Enterprise-Level Analysis, Transitional Economies, Exports, Trade,

show abstract

Enterprise Ownership, Market Competition and Manufacturing Priorities in a Sub-Saharan African Emerging Economy: Evidence from Ghana

Acquaah

2005

J Manage Governance

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The economic liberalization policies being implemented by many African economies have led to significant efficiency and performance improvements in the activities of privately owned enterprises. This study examines the effect of the economic liberalization policies on the entrepreneurial development of domestic-owned enterprises. This is done by examining how the type of enterprise ownership (wholly domestic-owned enterprises vs. foreign–domestic joint ventures enterprises), and the increase in competition affect the manufacturing priorities of privately owned enterprises in Ghana. The results show that the enhancement in manufacturing efficiency and quality improvement in privately owned enterprises could be traced to the activities of foreign–domestic joint venture enterprises. However, as market competition increases, wholly domestic-owned enterprises emphasize manufacturing efficiency and quality improvement more that foreign–domestic joint venture enterprises. Implications for policy are discussed. Copyright Springer 2005economic liberalization, foreign–domestic joint ventures, manufacturing priorities, market competition, Ghana, wholly domestic-owned enterprises,

show abstract

Exporting and Restructuring in Privatised Firms from Russia, Ukraine and Belarus

Cited by 21 publications

References 28 publications

Structural Reform and Firm Exports

Structural Reform and Firm Exports

Exporting Activity in Transitional Economies: An Enterprise-Level Study

Enterprise Ownership, Market Competition and Manufacturing Priorities in a Sub-Saharan African Emerging Economy: Evidence from Ghana

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About